Parents in bitter Michigan custody battle told to behave

The Detroit Free Press is reporting that the new judge assigned to the Tsimhoni Case, Circuit Judge Joan Young told Maya Tsimhoni (Maya Eibschitz) and Omer Tsimhoni, along with their attorneys, that the court would no longer tolerate derisive or disparaging comments from any of the parties about each other, their attorneys or the court.

[Read More]

Editor’s Note:

  • We applaud Judge Joan Young for taking the first steps to de-escalate the conflict in this case. It is important that all parties respect the each other and the court.
  • There has been a disturbing trend in these high conflict divorce and family abduction cases with the protective parent movement groups trying the case on social media. Some of these posts are similar to the cyber stalking, cyber bullying and digital domestic violence that has been seen in other similar cases.
  • The Tsimhoni Case started with what we believe was a Family Abduction in Israel. The father came home from work one day and the mom left Israel with the kids for the United States. The father eventually moved back to Detroit, Michigan. As time has progressed, the conflict in this case has continued to escalate. Let’s hope that both parents can work toward the goal of attending their first kids’ high school graduation and being able to tolerate each other for that event.
Advertisements

26 Responses to Parents in bitter Michigan custody battle told to behave

  1. Margo/Mom says:

    I also applaud the Judge’s low-key approach–accepting written arguments in lieu of oral testimony for the procedural matters. Having ruled on jurisdiction the current issue before the court has to do with lifting the stay which was requested to allow Mom’s counsel time needed to go after the previous judge. Again no oral arguments and she seems to be of a mind to rule on the law rather than a good bit of the emotional hue and cry that seems to be playing to social media. Ironically Mom’s counsel has suggested that the kids need to be out of the spotlight surrounding their current school, friends, etc. I couldn’t agree more that the kids (particularly the oldest who has entered adolescence) don’t need to have their parents’ fights (and all kinds of claims about the kids) being splashed around the school yard. But unlike Mom and her counsel, I cannot see that a geographic cure (moving to another location in Michigan) will accomplish this. If anything can help, it is this judge’s deliberate step-by-step approach and her refusal to yank the kids around any more right now.

  2. 1. Hague ruled Mom did not abduct. Kids were born in USA, Mom testified she never “moved” to Israel and Mom and kids had right to return to USA – Kids did not adjust to Israel.
    2. How is it possible to have a custody suit without disparaging the other party??? If you claim other parent is unfit isn’t that “disparaging”?
    3. Judge Young did not order court professionals from “disparaging” parties. GAL compared Mom to Charles Manson, Hayes disparaged Mom in front of the kids and told kids they were “brainwashed” [by Mom], previous Judge disparaged – insulting kids intelligence, calling them brainwashed, no manners, compared Mom to Charles Manson, etc. Dad’s hand-picked “doctor” calls Mom “psychological abuser” “borderline” and “narcisstic”. Worst insulting came from Judge and her henchmen (professionals).

    • underwatch says:

      Hadassah,

      1. I understand the dad came home from Israel and the home was empty. There was a period where this is still a parental kidnapping. It sure sounded like she moved to Israel or at the very least told her husband that they were moving. That doesn’t sound like coparenting.

      2. Why couldn’t these two very bright parents coparent? It doesn’t sound like there has been any coparenting. Even more important, the kids don’t respect their parents, other adults or the courts.

      3. Is there any chance this situation can be de-escalated? Will both parents be able to attend their children’s graduation and act in a civil manner without calling the police on each other?

      • Margo/Mom says:

        I really wonder about whether there can ultimately be any meaningful co-parenting in this case. Of course the public is not privy to the actual day-to-day actions of family members, however according to Mom’s most recent court filings, she was actively resisting any meaningful involvement in the process of reintegrating Dad into the kids’ lives–choosing instead to fight a battle over the choice of therapist. It would appear as though Mom’s levels of mistrust are possibly insurmountably high. It would also appear as though it has been this lack of cooperation–rather than any court orders–that has kept her away from the children.

        it would appear as though Mom’s efforts at self-protection from meeting with any therapist who might form a negative opinion, or touch on any of Mom’s greatest fears or sources of pain–while ostensibly aimed at protecting against ultimate charges of being an unfit parent–have not only kept her out of her children’s lives, but may ultimately actually show her to be unfit.

        Also of concern is a small note in a recent filing. According to counsel, Mom was actually hoping that the judge would rule that Oakland County did not have jurisdiction–and had in fact taken steps to relocate to another county in anticipation of a new divorce decision from the very beginning. Counsel noted that as evidence of a spirit of cooperation that Mom would now be moving back to Oakland County.

        Really? Mom hasn’t even been keeping the home fires burning amidst the ongoing narrative of her supporters that the children were missing “home” (with frequent references to a dog–that I believe actually belongs to a neighbor)? Has Mom in fact busted up the family “home” in order to set up a geographical separation from Dad’s new residence–presuming a return to the prior status quo of hostility? Doubly ironic that counsel suggested that the contemplated move (claiming that this was in the works prior to the children’s removal from Mom in June) was in order to remove the kids from a location in which they have to constantly deal with the overwhelming publicity. Wait, what? First, there was no publicity prior to the removal, and the publicity following removal was the result of Mom taking the story to the press, the internet and social media. And whether Mom is in control or not, there has been no lack of “coaching” suggestions to the children via twitter and Facebook–not to mention flyiing a banner over the children’s school.

        I don’t know if an actual diagnosis of borderline/narcissistic personality is a possibility (contrary to the narrative that this has been “ruled out” the closest I see in the record is that some years ago it was apparent that Mom knew how to game an MMPI–rendering inconclusive results). However Mom’s ongoing behaviors should certainly call into question her mental stability. While I would hope for an ultimate role for this Mom in her children’s lives–for their sake–the children’s protection must be the highest concern.

        They are back in court next week to determine which issues are to be brought forward now that the judge has agreed to lifting of the stay. I would imagine that Dad’s request for full custody would loom large on that list.

      • underwatch says:

        Hi Margo/Mom,

        I agree with your conclusions about this case.

        In following these cases over the past two decades, it seems many of these protective moms have very similar mental health conditions and family backgrounds. Many are highly educated. Unfortunately, they are unable to conclude that by escalating the custody dispute and not coparenting — they are not acting in the best interests of their children.

        I feel sorry that these kids have to see their names on the Internet. Someday the kids will go off to college and when others see their last name — they will be associated by their parents custody case. I would doubt any college kid would want that.

      • Margo/Mom says:

        I came here to bring an update and your question #3 caught my eye, “Is there any chance this situation can be de-escalated?”

        Let me say that there have been several points at which I have hoped that Mom’s love for her children, or perhaps a fear of losing contact, might serve to refocus on moving forward, past some of the ego, anger and need to be “right.” In the last month or so there has been forward motion through the court–lifting the stay, setting dates for the custody hearing (in June), putting the Daubert hearing regarding the admissibility of evidence regarding alienation on the calendar–and laying out in the interim a shared parenting schedule with the children moving back and forth. After the first weekend with Mom, Dad’s lawyer was able to report that there were no negative repercussions. I had hopes.

        Just released, however, are the dates for yet another pre-pre hearing. This is on bringing in two out-of-state attorneys to serve pro bono to assist Mom’s legal team. My source for this is one of the pro-Mom Facebook pages, so they were very laudatory (free legal help! more lawyers must be better, right? prestigious firm, history of work with abused children’s cases), so I did some quick probing. One of the attorneys is associated with Child Justice, which seems to be a protective parent organization hiding behind a supposed mission of protecting abused kids (all of their exemplar case studies involve abused children caught up in custody cases). I would be interested if anyone has already done any background digging into this particular organization.

        But, in terms of de-escalation. No, I don’t think so.

      • underwatch says:

        Margo,

        These court hearings are more about the groups and experts promoting their cause and themselves than the children. Child Justice was a sponsor of the film by Garland Waller of Boston University. This is the protective parent or Family Court Critic movement supporting Maya Tsimhoni and not these children.

      • Margo/Mom says:

        Underwatch–oh, I get it. I truly do. What hurts is that these groups are masquerading as being anti-child abuse. Really–who cannot support being anti-child abuse. Scratch the surface, however and not only is the animosity towards Family Courts evident, but clearly they are only providing their pro bono services to the parents in contested divorces. I see no concern being extended to victims of people like Jerry Sandusky or Denny Hastert. They are clearly about using allegations of abuse to help in “winning” custody in court. And I find that to be very sad.

        I am hoping that Judge Young keeps them out of Michigan, but I don’t know if there are any grounds to do so. This case is becoming a Who’s Who of people I wish I didn’t know existed!

      • underwatch says:

        Margo, in the early ’90s, Joan Pennington of the National Center for Protective Parents tried to setup a network of both attorneys and expert witnesses. But the only way to recruit any attorneys and expert witnesses for their cause was that they needed to mothers to go into hiding and journalists to cover their stories. Some mothers were encouraged to go underground because they had the media or journalists lined up to cover the initial kidnapping. So fast forward almost twenty years and they have renamed the cause as the Family Court Critics and using the same expert witnesses. These expert witnesses usually have written books and use these cases and the media to promote themselves. The National Center for Protective Parents even received Federal/State grant money, it was eventually shut down and Pennington, an attorney retired. Unfortunately, now with the Internet and Social Media, these experts want to attach themselves to these cases in Michigan and Minnesota. They want a trial and the associated publicity. It’s not about co-parenting and the kids but the cause. What teenagers want their personal lives in the media? What parent would put their kids through this?

  3. The kids were defiant not criminally insane. They’re better off where they are rather than being with their mother.

  4. Jill says:

    The kids were happy with their mom, participating in fencing, violin lessons, seeing friends and getting great grades. The oldest one was even invited to Stanford Math camp last summer. Why aren’t people wondering about what their lives are like now, living with their dad, having no contact with their mom, being torn from their activities, pets and having lower grades. The oldest boy is in 9th grade and before was an honor student. Now, his grades have slipped after this insane “temporary” custody order and 5 day kidnapping bootcamp with a high school graduate. Ninth grade transcripts are used by colleges. He is very intelligent and should be able to shine again as he did when he lived with his mom.

    Are the kids allowed any activities at all now? The therapist Omer picked IS a big deal as he defied the court order and deliberately picked someone who would give Maya a personality disorder diagnosis and the kids a child psychological abuse diagnosis in order to help Omer’s full custody upcoming case. Let’s not forget that Maya was NEVER given a personality disorder diagnosis by Dr. Olka (who clearly stated she has NO personality disorder), nor her own psychiatrist, NOR the the court-ordered therapist! Omer wanted to pick someone who would use the Dorcy Pruter’s and Craig childress’s approach to help with his court case.

    Why are the kids losing their innocence and childhoods by not being allowed to see their mom (unless she agrees to work with the therapist Omer picked). She had already seen the court-appointed therapist several times! He wants to keep delaying this , yet he can’t blame her , since now if 8 months later the kids won’t talk to him, it is his own inability to know how to bond with them. HINT- maybe having them see their mom, pets, get back into sports and music and back on internet would make them feel alive again!!

    I hope Judge Young will immediately restore contact between the mom with her kids and the court of appeals will remove the illegal ex parte order that separated them. Maya’s intelligent alternative proposals have always been ignored by the court. Let’s hope that Judge Young and the court of appeals will be thinking of their kids and their happiness. They have been described as very depressed in last several months and who wouldn’t be having no contact with their mom or any of the normalcy other kids have with activities, friends, music and pets.

    • underwatch says:

      Jill, do you know why Maya can’t coparent these kids with her former spouse? There are so many parents in this World that are able to coparent.

    • Margo/Mom says:

      Dr. Okla did give MMPI questionnaires to both parents. Essentially the only finding from Mom’s answers were that she is bright enough to attempt to game the diagnostic tool–providing a pattern of answers selected to show her in the best possible light. As a result, Dr. Okla termed the results “inconclusive,” which is a very far cry from ruling anything out–as Mom’s supporters have taken to claiming.

      I am wondering if you are actually privy to some of the information that you cite (lowered grades, removal from activities, depression and the like)–or if you, like many who post in “support” of Mom, have simply extrapolated that from the limited information provided by Mom’s counsel in court filings.

      I would imagine that the choice of a therapist had a good bit to do with finding someone able to align with the education process that was initiate during the five-day workshop, and willing to further progress with the children, rather than being supportive (albeit likely not intentionally) of relapse through prematurely re-introducing Mom into the situation without sufficient preparation on the part of either the children, or Mom.

      The real ongoing question would seem to be (and I do not know the answer) why Mom has refused cooperation with the path most likely to bring about a reintegration with the children–through working with the counselor who is actually seeing them, rather than insisting that everyone move back to the counselor that she selected. Perhaps this has actually occurred during the time between court appearances. I for one certainly hope so.

    • It’s not illegal if the children were illegally removed from Israel. This mother doesn’t have the ability co-parent with the father. That’s why the ex-parte order is there.

  5. Jill says:

    The Hague ruling did not agree with Omer and in fact he admitted to fraud there.

    • Margo/Mom says:

      Having actually read the Hague ruling, I saw no admission of fraud there. The Hague ruling established whether the Israeli or Michigan court had precedence and this was based solely on which location could be considered the children’s “home” or location to which they were habituated.

      The Michigan court has precendence, and therefore could over-rule the Israeli court’s determination regarding abduction. Had this happened in regard to another state, say California, the ruling might have been different (California defines parental abduction somewhat more liberally).

      In part, I see this as water long under the bridge–overlaid at this point by multiple other custody decisions through the court. However, what I do believe to be important–and continuously in danger of being lost–is that the grounds on which a court may or may not arrive at a determination of parental abduction have very little to do with how said event is experienced by the children. In this case, three children were uprooted from a situation in which they lived with two parents (whether we call it a home or simply an extended period of visitation), and without any leave-taking were abruptly removed from one parent, taken secretly to another country (albeit a country with which they were already familiar), living for a time in a hotel, and denied any contact with the lost parent. When contact was re-established, it was under highly controlled conditions. Father was not allowed to know where they were living. At times there were taken by cab to meeting places (presumably so Dad wouldn’t know what vehicle Mom drove, or research the license plates). Mom became highly agitated when the court agreed to parenting time for Dad–and put in place a neighbor to watch their time together in a park, even warning the kids NOT to leave the park with Dad (we don’t know what reason she gave them). I point all this out because it is fairly clear that what these children have experienced suggests that they have much in common with children who have been parentally abducted. They need and deserve the care of a treatment team who understands the experiences and needs of such children.

      • underwatch says:

        Wow, this sure sounds like a Family Abduction by almost every protective parent case we have covered on this site. Thank you for these details.

  6. Margo/Mom says:

    Dates have now been set (mid-June) for hearing on Dad’s motion for full custody. A couple of Mom’s motion’s (for Next-friend status for Mom’s mom–in order to hire lawyers for the kids; and to ditch the GAL) will be determined by the judge without oral arguments–unless dropped.

    Also ordered or agreed to (this was a pre-trial hearing) is for Mom to “attempt” meeting with the kids’ counselor (apparently not ordering a return to the one Mom selected), and for Mom to enable GAL and Dad’s counsel to converse with her counselor. This strikes me as moving beyond a troublesome impasse.

    There are dates in April for Dad to file an updated motion for full custody, and for Mom to respond. The current Judge has been pretty clear about toning down some of the fireworks through filings, but I look for likelihood of contention in these two filings–as well as reference to updated information on the kids.

    There was also a meeting between counsel from the two sides on Friday to discuss renewed contact between Mom and kids. Nothing has been made public yet on that outcome. But, based on the above–inclusive of Mom working with the kids’ current counselor–I am hopeful for some structure/protective parameters to be in place–if not outright supervision–prior to reintroduction.

  7. Jill says:

    The GAL recommends one week off and one week on with each parent in the March 28th meeting. The April 1st transcript was not released yet, but the judge very much appears to want contact to resume. Also it is odd that Lansat said he had no knowledge of mom having met with counselors when both V the court-appointed therapist submitted an affadavit in November as well as mom’s own psychiatrist submitted her affadavit of meeting with Maya. Has Omer been in therapy and wouldn’t that be helpful for him to learn how to co-parent? Clearly the judge was not happy when a therapist S was mentioned that was NOT court appointed V! I wonder how she will feel when she hears that Dr B was picked by Omer and Lansat, since she was NOT court-appointed! And as Tanner pointed out when the judge said they were joint custodians, Maya was supposed to be involved in any process of a therapist choice (though they were supposed to be working with V and that IS someone Maya met with several times! Has Omer worked with a therapist and if not, why not? He needs help with co-parenting as he knew that Maya met both with her own psychiatrist and V and did nothing to follow the advice of V for the kids to see mom.

    This judge is very fair and it is so wonderful the kids will finally see their mom this weekend! The tragedy is that this should have been in November as their affadavits were submitted then. I can’t wait for the kids to see their mom, their pets and be able to tell their mom about their school years and concerns. Clearly Middleditch, Omer’s lawyer, does not have this new judge wrapped around her finger doing her bidding. And Margo Mom, no mom was not ordered to “meet” with the kids’ therapist, but to try to make a communication and I believe it even said her lawyer could contact her. I think if she does contact this Dr B it is best her lawyer is present anyway as I wouldn’t trust this individual.

    The reason probably why mom didn’t want to meet with her is since she was never diagnosed before with a personality disorder and she knows that Dr b would want to do this in order to help Omer’s trial , it would make no sense for her to subject herself to this. And let’s not forget not Childress I believe who’s presentation was not accepted for the APA June conference according to a post I saw so the APA is far from recognizing parental alienation or even a personality disorder (which Maya was never diagnosed with) as something that valid. So happy for this upcoming weekend between Maya and her three kids so some normalcy can be back in their lives again. Fascinating how Middleditch was much more interested in talking about her fees than the kids seeing their mom! But maybe she is getting nervous since there is a judge that’s fair now and the GAL wants mom to have the kids returned to mom which he said “was the plan all along”.

  8. Margo/Mom says:

    Jill–take a breath, punctuation is your friend!

    I read some things in the transcript somewhat differently than you apparently did. I didn’t read the judge as upset with Mom’s choice of therapist as much as simply trying to keep all of the players straight. My understanding of the terms of the ex parte and/or protocol was that Mom was to enter into counseling with the therapist of her choice. I also noted that she sought clarification about the intended roles of some of the various professionals–and felt affirmed in seeing that V’s intended role was to serve as a case manager (or coordinator between the various family members and professionals).

    I also noted that the Judge was pretty clear about not altering the ex parte (as that is under appeal and therefore cannot be touched by this court), but rather following it. She also introduced that there were contained in it specific precedence requirements to Mom meeting with the children. Tanner (Mom’s attorney) was rather disingenous in attempting to blame Lansat for not providing info about what Mom was supposed to do, and further feigning ignorance regarding the requirement to meet with Dr. B. In fact, in one of his pleadings on Mom’s behalf he was quite clear that Mom had no intention of ever seeing Dr. B, that she considered Dr. B to be irresponsible and articulating a belief (based on what he did not say) that Dr. B was denigrating her to the children.

    I also noted that not only was Dad’s counsel in opposition to Lansat’s week-on/week-off proposal (particularly pointing out that there was no evidence of no change at all on Mom’s part, simply that “it’s been a long time.”), but neither did the Judge salute when he ran that one up the flag pole. I would imaging that IF Mom follows through with a meeting with Dr. B, and IF there is some demonstration that what Mom has been working on with her own therapist is consistent with the reunification requirements (a pretty big IF–previously provided affidavits were limited to a statement of the amount of time spent and the general assessment of being “cooperative.”) and that she has demonstrated some progress, that a recommendation would most likely begin with some carefully structured and supervised visitation time. This isn’t about the kids “going home” (in fact, I believe that Mom had actually moved back to Ann Arbor earlier this year–counsel said she was willing to move back now) or patting the dog (actually, isn’t it the neighbor’s dog?). This is about doing work to recover from the damage that was inflicted upon these kids.

    Tugged at my heart when Dad’s counsel pointed out that Mom likely never intended that the appeal and stay would drag on as long as it has. The reality seems to be that all of Mom’s eggs have been placed in a basket of believing that some magic fairly judge mother will land and vanquish the mean old Judge Gorcyca and all her rulings, make Dad go away and return to all the old ways. Mom could have been cooperating with the reunification process much earlier than this. Not just nominally picking what she wanted, but actually cooperating with her children’s counselor.

    But, I think you are right. She greatly fears being diagnosed by a professional. Perhaps this ought to raise the question in our minds–perhaps the woman truly IS disordered? There is certainly plenty of surface symptomology. Avoiding diagnosis won’t make her condition go away.

    • underwatch says:

      Margo,

      I think these Family Court evaluations will rarely reveal any detailed diagnosis of the mother because most therapists would water-down any findings. They would want to provide just enough to keep the children in a coparenting situation. That said, any narcissist and borderline personality disorder would make coparenting nearly impossible unless the protective mom took great strides to show she could coparent. In most of these cases, the narcissistic protective mom would be unwilling to listen to any advice or recommendations given by any of these therapists, no matter how many Ivy League degrees or professional credentials the therapist had. She would think she was better than any of them.

      The bottom line is that most of these protective moms cannot see the emotional harm they are doing to their child. I think in the Madonna/Richey case, the fact that their teenage son isn’t interested in being in the news should mean something to these protective parent moms and their supporters. If this celebrity son wants to be kept out of a custody dispute, why would their non-celebrity children want to be involved in one? Come on, an airplane flying over the kids school with a banner? These teenagers just want to be teenagers!

      The more I read about this case, the more respect I have for Judge Gorcyca and her ruling.

      Thanks for your very insightful posts on this case. Our website gets a large amount of traffic from the protective parent groups and I know they are reading posts like yours.

  9. Jill says:

    Margo, You are distorting things as usual. Maya has seen several counselors over the years and none have given her a personality disorder diagnosis by the way! Perhaps this is why Omer went to a 3rd counselor hoping for that?? He is the one that seems to have the fear- that she doesn’t have a personality diagnosis. How will he get custody? He wants that so badly. Why would she have a fear about it, she’s never had that as a diagnosis! Your point of view seems so off, it’s hard to know what to write. Maya had MD training and raised her kids with stellar grades, plenty of extracurricular activities and they were model students, musicians and sports players. Teachers and babysitters all attended the protest last June to testify to the beautiful bond between Maya and her kids.

    It seems that the judge feels that mom did meet the criterion if she is having parenting time start tomorrow. It doesn’t sound like she is going along with Middleditch’s plan of stalling by having mom have more and more sessions. Dr B was NOT the court-appointed person assigned and in any case since they have joint custody, Maya is supposed to have a say in who the therapist is. V is a therapist and was the assigned person. You can choose to ignore this and the number of sessions V and Maya had as well as the sessions Maya had with her psychiatrist (who is an MD unlike Dorcy Pruter the hs graduate)! The wording about V was that the children were supposed to continue to work with the person that they had previously begun with which was V.

    Your hatred of Maya only is 2nd to Middleditch’s and Gorcya’s. It is wonderful that Maya worked so hard to have Judge Gorcyca off the case as gorcya had said in June to Liam, “And I’m not even going to say what I think of your mother.” There is no way she would’ve ruled objectively but would’ve done the usual PAS bs where they let mom see the kids once and then say the kids regress and so mom can’t see them anymore since they miss the mom. This is insanity!

    Your saying there are all these big ifs but if Maya does see the kids tomorrow then it would indicate she did comply with things by November and this was very long overdue and heartbreaking for the kids to have missed her nurturance, guidance and love for so many months. You don’t seem to want to comment at all about the fact that Lansat wants the week off and on as well as he said that the plan all along is that the kids will be back with mom at her home.

    • underwatch says:

      Jill, “Maya had MD training”. That doesn’t necessarily make her a good enough parent. With all the training she has had, why can’t she find a way to coparent with her former spouse. Why couldn’t she find some way to compromise and de-escalate the situation. Why couldn’t she find some way to make concessions for the benefit and “in the best interests” of her children.

      The MD training might be the issue. She is so narcissistic that she isn’t going to listen to anyone tell her what to do or how to raise her children. She wants to write her former husband out of her children’s lives. We see that in almost every protective parent case.

  10. Jill says:

    I’m not where you are getting narcissism from . First of all she never had that diagnosis and if you saw her on any videos you’d see she is very soft-spoken and actually shy. Her husband is the one who tried to write her out of the kids lives by keeping them away from her on their birthdays, Chanukah, Jewish holidays and not allowing the court-appointed therapist to bring them to her on both occasions. In fact, it appears Judge Young has given them unsupervised visitation with Maya this weekend and so wonderful. Maya had complied with seeing court appointed therapist and her own psychiatrist but Omer tried to defy the court’s orders but changing therapists to a PA therapist. Well it looks like it is the original court-appointed therapist that is now supposed to meet with the kids- a fair person without an agenda accept for the kids’ best interest.

  11. Margo/Mom says:

    Jill–there is a presumption among the Mom supporters (actually many presumptions) of some agenda to capture the kids via a route that includes a diagnosis of narcissism (or borderline personality disorder). While such a diagnosis would certainly help to explain the phenomenon clearly observed in the children’s extreme behavior towards their father, I do not know that, from a legal standpoint, any such diagnosis is a hard and fast requirement.

    What is clear, and documented multiple times by multiple professionals over the years, are various pathological behaviors exhibited by the children. These behaviors include and unreasonable fear of and ultimate disdain for their father, clinging behavior as regards their mother at ages at which such behavior is far from typical and an ultimate display of oppositional behavior in the presence of multiple authority figures (inclusive of court deputies, a judge and even their own appointed counsel) and an extreme lack of individuation between and amongst the children (huddling together, secretive communication, the oldest child setting behavioral parameters for the younger two, such as pulling them back from attempts to hug/go with their father, lock-step demonstrations of disdain for their father, etc).

    Also clear and documented are behaviors by the mother of various actions to interfere with the children’s normal bonding and relationship with their father (de facto abduction from Israel and standing as gatekeeper to prevent contact or knowledge of their whereabouts; denigrating the father in the presence of the children as observed and reported by multiple counselors–including at least one hand-selected by Mom; her own opposition to rules/authority during the summer visit at camp–leading camp security persons to suspect that she was attempting to abduct the children; and the egregious involvement of the children in a false abuse allegation last spring–first announcing to all of the children that the father had abused one of them and then triggering a CPS investigation by taking the child to multiple doctors who were unable to substantiate any physical evidence linked to the child’s complaint of pain–but who were nonetheless bound by law to report Mom’s allegation that the father physically abused the child–the veracity of her report is denied by the parenting supervisor who was present).

    In short–despite the work of Dr. Childress and others who link alienated behaviors in children to pathogenic parenting carried out by narcissists and borderline personalities–I frankly suspect that any actual diagnostic work as regards Mom is something of a rabbit hole. Such a diagnosis may well explain WHY she behaves as she does. However, I would suspect that what will be far more critical in court is THAT she behaves as she does.

  12. Margo/Mom says:

    Judge Young ordered a weekend visit with Mom–and I certainly hope that things go well, and no harm is done. Detroit Free Press has an article up, which has generated a lot of buzz.

    However, The Women’s Coalition, which I understand Damon Dumas heads up or represents, posted the following, which I find to be far more accusatory and damaging than even the most stalwart Mom-supporter posting to the newspaper comment section:

    Although it appears to be good news that a new judge is finally allowing Maya to see her children again after almost a year of maternal deprivation, it is important to be aware that it is only because the agenda to empower the father has already been accomplished, not that the new judge sees the light and is belatedly providing due process or equal protection to a protective mother.

    Dr. Maya Tsimhoni and her children have been deliberately traumatized by forced separation, and the children have been methodically broken of their will to tell the truth about the father’s abuse and their desire to live with their mother.

    If you look at the order [see link below], the judge required the children to first see a court-appointed/affiliated psychologist for two visits and make a report to the court. This way the judge could find out whether the children have gotten with the program after almost a year of trauma-based mind control and Stockholming. She wants to make sure they have been broken and will not be speaking anymore of abuse by the father or fighting to live with their mother instead of him.

    And take note that the judge is not allowing any more visits until she makes sure that Maya will not interfere, i.e. try and keep primary custody or protect her children from the father. This threat is couched in the gender neutral language of both parents being required to encourage parenting time with the other, when in fact it is directed at Maya. She cannot see her children again until after a hearing on the 20th when her behavior will be judged.

    Although Maya is luckier than most protective moms in that she is being allowed unsupervised visits, don’t be fooled. She must continue to allow her children to live with an abuser or face losing them.

    The agenda to maintain paternal entitlement has been achieved.

    ORDER for unsupervised visit: http://bit.ly/22j7ifE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: